ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR (CIRCUIT BENCH, JODHPUR)

(Through Video Conferencing)

5.

OA 120/2025 Sgt Nibin P Babu (ADSO) …. Applicant Versus UOI & Others …. Respondents For Applicant : Mr.DP Dhaka, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

O R D E R

02.05.2025

1. Under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal act 2007, the Applicant has filed this OA praying for quashing and setting aside Impugned Order dated 04/6/2024, Annexure A/1, issued by the Respondents being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and unconstitutional in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution and that the Respondents be directed to grant extention of service to the Applicant for three years wef 01/7/2025 to 30/6/2028 as per the provision of AFO 24/2021. As an Interim Relief, the applicant has also prayed for granting a stay order of the Impugned Order, as the applicant is due to be discharged from service wef 30/6/2025 as per his Discharge Order, Annexure A/1.

2. At joint request of both the parties, the OA is being disposed off at the admission stage itself.

3. We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. Perusal of record reveals that as per the discharge order dated 04/6/2024 issued for discharging the applicant from service on transfer to pension establishment otherwise than at his own request as per provisions of Air Force Rules 1969, Chapter III, Rule 15 (2) (d). The request of the applicant for grant of three years of extension in service was deliberated upon by the authorities, but the Competent Authority,after considering the entire service record of the applicant, has not agreed to and not approved the request. It is also pertinent to observe from the service record placed on record by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant wasawarded Red Ink Entry punishment of ‘Severe Reprimand’ on 09/8/2010 for the charges of unauthorized entry, consumption of liquor and false allegation. Moreover, the applicant is a Low Medical Category due to the disability, “Type II Diabetes Mellitus &CAD with myocardial Bridge LAD (Old)”. Also, as per opinion cited in the medical document, there are certain restrictions/exemptions with regard to the employment of the applicant – such as, to work under supervision, range security, PPG, handling of arms/ammunition, posting to HAA/CI Ops and, therefore, the medical authorities have exempted employing the applicant on primary duties and, hence, he was employed only in URC.

5. In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the competent authority in not acceding to his request of three year extension in service and the OA is, therefore, dismissed. We also find that taking into consideration the employment restrictions due to the medical condition of the applicant, there is no infirmity or illegality in the just decision taken by the competent authority in this matter.

6. The OA is disposed off accordingly. No order on costs.

(SANJIV MITTAL) (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

cda/-